It really does seem like there are no grown-ups in the Republican Party anymore. There are just infants who don't throw tantrums and get tenure because of it.

I speak, of course, of Daniel Drezner and his cowardly ilk. The guy's dishonesty and defensiveness has been amply demonstrated [See my response to the linked post here--D.D.], and since the Iraq tar baby happened he's turned almost exclusively towards talking about outsourcing. This is an evasive escape hatch if I've ever seen one.

I've concluded that Soros is a political loon of the first order. It is ridiculously easy to attack George Soros without ever discussing his religion.

Two points on this. One, the attacks on Soros were anti-semitic, and ignoring this piece of the pie is to ignore the hate-filled mess that is the modern GOP. Drezner's point is that an attack on his religion is analytically unnecessary - what about the fact that it's really a bad thing to say, and what that fact says about the attackers? Two, calling a serious thinker on international politics a 'loon' without evidence is tantamount to intellectual cheating. I don't care how often you're published in the New Republic, this is not respectable discourse, this is the aiding and abetting of toxic politics.

This is not surprising, because it's what Drezner and other desperately pathetic 'moderates' do all the time. [See my response to the linked post here--D.D.] First, they join in the catcalls and jeer at liberals for being unserious. Then, as the bad news trickle in, they moderately distance themselves both from the Democrats and the extreme Republicans. As the bad news gets worse, they continue to act appalled at the level of political discourse, without pointing fingers at the people whose motivations they completely misinterpretted and whitewashed. Finally, they ignore the situation and pronounce themselves independent, with both sides meriting disdain and maybe Bush their vote. At no point is their a glimmer of recognition that they were seriously, disastrously, horrifically wrong, and that lots of people are dead because of it. Nor do they realize that they are wrong because the people they rely on are far far more extreme than they are believe.

These guys are like the business elite who dealt with Hitler, hoping they could control him because they held the money. Drezner thinks he has good ideas and speaks at academic conferences, so he bears no responsibility for policing his own side. 'I don't have a side', he'd probably jeer back, 'Neither candidate represents my viewpoint'. Yes, you do have a side, professor, and it isn't just that you advised the original Bush/Cheney campaign. When you say that 'first-rate political loon' and holocaust survivor George Soros has accused the jews of fomenting anti-semitism, you've picked your side.

3) Stoller has a fair point in stating that "calling a serious thinker on international politics a 'loon' without evidence is tantamount to intellectual cheating." Of course, I think have a fair point in saying that Soros is not a serious thinker on international politics. Part of the reason I didn't go further into thoughts on Soros is that they're going to appear in another venue. However, if Stoller wants some evidence, here's a brief snippet from my forthcoming review of The Bubble of American Diplomacy:

The most obvious example of Soros’ inconsistencies comes on the question of whether the war on terrorism is really a war or a law-enforcement operation. He starts out by saying that it should be the latter (p. 26): “We need detective work, good intelligence, and cooperation from the public, not military action.” A scant 16 pages later, however, he allows that, “The invasion of Afghanistan was justified by its role as the home base of Al Qaeda.”

The Bubble of American Diplomacy is riddled with assertions that are either wrong or contradicted a few pages later. For example, on pages 59-60, Soros makes the jaw-dropping claim that compared to nation-building in Iraq, “conditions were much more favorable in Afghanistan.” Clearly, neither country is a walk in the park when it comes to statebuilding. That said, on what possible basis can Soros claim that a country with one-third the per capita income, one-tenth the amount of paved roads, three times the infant mortality rate, and double the number of primary languages and ethnicities than Iraq is a better candidate for nation-building?

4) Finally, for someone who gets outraged at offensive and anti-Semitic rhetoric (a truly bold position), I'm not sure whether it's rhetorically useful for Stoller to say I'm "cowardly" or compare me with "the business elite who dealt with Hitler." After reading that latter point in particular, my first reaction was, "gee, Matt Stoller is an anti-Semitic schmuck." My second reaction is the title of this post.

Stoller would probably label this post as "defensive" -- because it is. I have no qualms labeling his original his post as "dishonest."

1) "Frankly, what I said was inappropriately written in anger and just based on the tone probably deserved a lot less effort than he gave it."

2) "[Calling Soros a "loon"] set me off. Calling someone insane who is clearly not to score political points is central to this mindset."

3) "The problem as I see it is the essential unwillingness of someone like Drezner to admit what he knows is true - Iraq is an attempt at empire perpetrated by deeply illiberal individuals."

My short responses:

1) Don't worry Matt -- I won't be devoting much time or effort to your prose in the future.

2) For the record, George Soros is clearly not insane, and I apologize if I gave that impression (thouh I don't think I did). He's accomplished many great things as a philanthropist. But even he describes his political views as "rabid." When they're not that, they're banal. If Stoller wants to take Soros seriously, fine -- that's his waste of time.

3) Oh, please -- an empire that sent in fewer troops than was necessary? An administration that now seems hell-bent on getting out of the country? Where's your evidence for empire?

I think the underlying issue is the unwillingness of war-supporters (or former war-supporters) to say, "Yeah, I f*cked up that call." In the case of the Insta-types, it devolves into relentlessly upbeat coverage of Iraq and complaints about the stab-in-the-back. But, as time goes on, I think these guys come off increasingly as partisan hacks or ... I'm hesitant to use the word loon, but it seems appopriate (though I am by no means an expert in anything beyond putting on my own shoes).

I certainly find it more troubling when moderate Republicans of good faith are unwilling to admit a mistake. Because it means it could all happen again - all we really need is better management in charge. After 18 mos. of being told that I hate America, am hopelessly naive, and actively support the rape, torture, and murder of all Iraqis (by people who chose to rely on the foreign policy acumen of this Bush's team, rather than that of the older, smarter, better Bush's team, mind you), a repeat is a bit much to face given the current news out of Iraq.

It doesn't even matter whether the motives of the purveyors of the "wrong management theory" are being honest in their assesment of the situation or are simply devising a theory that allows them not to be wrong (and therefore minimizes any injury to their credibility on these matters). Because these people are reasonable, the theory is taken seriously. So even after the object lesson of Iraq, we still haven't settled whether its OK to invade another country on the basis of ... reasons I still can't fathom.

None of which is to say I think that Stoller is right (I'm too depressed by the possiblity of "doing it right next time" to care); but I can understand, though not approve of, the spleen.

SomeCallMeTim has it right. The fallback position of the true believer in a failed policy is always "it didn't work because it hasn't been tried." As I look back at Dan's recent Iraq posts (helpfully linked in his riposte), I see lots of implementation critiques, but nothing that comes close to admitting that the original rationale or the nation's CEO during this period were just plain, flat-out wrong.

I watched the Watergate hearings in 1973 with a near broken heart, as Senators I respected like Howard Baker and Fred Thompson, thru a fairly obvious distaste for the job, defended Nixon on narrow legalistic grounds to the utmost of their abilities.

Maybe it didn't matter. The Party has done ok. Call em as you see em, Prof.

Nothing that comes close to admitting that the original rationale or the nation's CEO during this period were just plain, flat-out wrong.

I think to "admit" something like that, you have to actually believe it in the first place.

IMHO, given the facts that were in evidence as of 1/2003, and even given the least favorable (to U.S. policy) interpretation of every element of speculation (things on the order of "Saddam had no WMD whatsoever and his evasions were nothing but an elaborate shell game conducted to save face in the Arab world" and "Saddam never under any circumstances would have done anything nice with anyone from a terrorist group ever until the day he died"), I still think the war was the right decision, even if many of the aspects of its management have been clear screw-ups from GWB and Donald Rumsfeld on down. I have zero faith that another year+ of sham negotiations, Ba'athist propoganda, shuttle diplomacy by George Galloway, and agitation by the Franco-Russian alliance to relax sanctions for their own economic benefit would have left the world any closer to a Saddam-free Iraq. Needless to say, I don't speak for Dan, and your mileage may, of course, vary.

Imagine there is a administration that comes into power, that, over time, in both its foreign policy, and in it's economic policy, have a clear pattern of being dishonest and lying through their teeth:

1. They lie about the reasons for a war, convincing the general public and reasons that turn out not to be true.
2. For wildly different economic situations, they, again and again, trot out the VERY SAME economic solution - that just happens to benefit the people they are associated with.
3. They close up any possible transparency in their administration - blocking at every turn, at every point, any openness in government.
4. They label the opposition, in every case, wrong, stupid, if not simply treasonous.
5. Their economic projections that allow them to push their tax program, are utterly based in deceit.
6. They lie about the effects of a new medical program - again, to push it through Congress to enactment.
7. On their watch, a movement towards torture (or torture-lite) almost becomes (or possibly becomes) part of the new legal structure - something that no one in their right mind though possible, years ago.
8. In the war gotten into because of lies, these people absolutely ignore the "post-war" period, making the already risky chance of success, much lower?

Given the truth of the above, do you simply "tut-tut", these people in power, because you believe in the system, believe that it will work itself out, believe that you can fair-mindedly "discuss" these things with these people - or do you simply shout out, "you Go***mn liars will STOP this NOW!!! You are killing the very framework of our democracy, you are poisoning the very bedrock of our social institutions! Go away, you incompetent, scummy liars!""

IF the situation above is accurate, the only true thing to do is to react strongly. The "untrue" thing to do, as is reference by P'Oneill, is simply to criticize the implementation of the lies.

Most democrats (and a growing percentage of the american population) believe our current administration IS the administration I describe above. And there are a lot of facts to back this up. Because of that, the brave, patriotic, right, moral thing to do IF THE ABOVE SCENARIO IS TRUE is to scream as loudly as you can.

So, remember when you are talking to democrats, they believe they are doing the right thing, because they believe the scenario above. If you wish to change minds, you have to demonstrate that the above scenario is NOT true, and marshall facts in that defense.

This debate still revolves around the 'reasons for war'. We are reminded that those that opposed the Iraq war were supporters of the Afghanistan war. But why would they support a war in Afghanistan that likely could have been conducted easily without removing the Taliban or massive troop deployment? The goal was to get Al Qaida and to get Bin Laden. They were responsible for 9/11[right?] so they are the primary targets.

A policy in Afghanistan could have been easy and brisk with the Pakistanis on board for a swoop and loop attack. Hit the prime targets and clean up afterwards with Special Forces. This route was possible, could have been employed, but ultimately didn't fit with what clearly was a NEW foreign policy requirement in the Middle East and Central Asia. Ignored states, with little diplomatic relations, where militants and terrorist operations either run free or remain under the watchful eye of a receptive government is in no interest to the security of the United States or its allies. Invasion, removal and rebuilding was the necessary policy in Afghanistan.

The objections to Iraq are well known. "Iraq is Secular, not islamist", "Saddam is contained", "Saddam is no threat to the United States" are just a short list of the reasons cited not to go to war. But they all fail to meet the new standards that the United States had to apply in regions where relations are uniquely objectionable to standard United States values in addition to a wealth of strategic resources that have served as the means to finance the ways of Islamist Salafist ideology not to mention an oppresive dominance of the global Islamic rite.

I think our problem here is that each side, as I really only consider that Iraqi policy had two options, are living in a cocoon where the opposing view is spun as either a 'warmonger' or 'Saddam's best friend'. As P. O'neill said and JC later affirms, supporting this President or his policies leaves you in a position that "were just plain, flat-out wrong". I like to think I'm right, but in the case of Iraq the supporters, among which I was not initially, have been closer to right than they have been to wrong. When that can be honestly acknowledged the debate will bear fruit, but presently their is dishonesty and vitriol that is rotten.

The most obvious example of Soros’ inconsistencies... “We need detective work, good intelligence, and cooperation from the public, not military action.” A scant 16 pages later, however, he allows that, “The invasion of Afghanistan was justified by its role as the home base of Al Qaeda.”

This is an inconsistency? Really? Since I haven't read his book, I don't know if he presents the police/military choice as an absolute and exclusive one, but I don't understand why it should be. Invading Afghanistan seemed like a good idea to me precisely because the government there was making it impossible for "detective work, good intelligence, and cooperation from the public" to take place. If supporting the action in Afghanistan while thinking that counteracting terrorism is usually best accomplished through non-military means is inconsistent, then lots of people share that inconsistency with Soros, including me. I had no idea I was such a loon.

Soros makes the jaw-dropping claim that compared to nation-building in Iraq, “conditions were much more favorable in Afghanistan.”
Perhaps your jaw hinge needs tightening? Again, I haven't read the book so I have no idea what case, if any, he makes. But this doesn't sound like an outrageous comment, even if it's wrong. The lives of regular people in Afghanistan, for instance, are arguably less negatively affected by an American military presence there - if there's no infrastructure to blow up, for instance, people won't miss it as much when it's gone. Do the extra primary languages and ethnicities in Afghanistan lead to a situation as sticky as the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd divide in Iraq? I would imagine that the factors that make Iraq a difficult nation-building project are related to the factors that have allowed an organized resistance to develop. Again, even if his assertion is wrong it doesn't sound indefensible and what you've offered here isn't a strong case for either his lunacy or unseriousness. Why can't Soros just be someone you think is wrong, instead of crazy?

Yep, it's true -- I was clearly defending "the anti-semitic attacks on George Soros" when I said in the post Matt linked to that that I though Tony Blankley excelled at "saying unbelievably stupid things," or when I said "Blankley is clearly an ass. As a Jew, I find that last bolded sentence repugnant" or when I approvingly linked to Eugene Volokh's post on why Blankley's statement was anti-Semitic.

No, you were inoculating yourself against charges of anti-semitism when you wrote those things. You were defending the anti-semitic attacks on George Soros when you linked to Bainbridge's post that equates criticism of Israeli policy with anti-semitism, and equates the words "contribute" and "cause." Such "I would NEVER say something so intemperate as those fringe people, but they have a point" inoculations are an important part of the Mediocre Moderate style.

While I basically agree with you that all eight of your points apply to the Bush administration, I think number 7 is the most serious charge. That one alone ought to make people stop and ask themselves whether they can continue supporting anything that this administration does.

Bush proclaimed after 9/11 "You are either with us or against us in the fight against terror". In the context of 9/11 this made some sense, especially if it had been directed first and foremost against such "allies" of us as Saudi Arabia.

But it has become a rallying cry of the neo-cons and the far right. They dropped the "in the fight against terror" bit and made it apply to everything. They ignored the possibly intended and perhaps sensible focus on Saudi Arabia completely and instead applied it to some of our allies in Europe. And then they started applying it within the US. Don't question our policies, or you are a traitor!

I generally find all kinds of Hitler comparisons stupid and misplaced. That goes for Stoller's comparison, too. (But, Dan, I'm not sure exactly why your first reaction to it was that Stoller was an "anti-Semitic schmuck".)

However, this administration is starting to adopt measures more commonly seen in totalitarian countries than in democracies - delcaring laws irrelevant, justifying torture, disenfranchising voters. The latter is done at the state level, of course, but it's done in a state that is governed by the brother of the President (Mark Kleiman links to the latest article: http://tampatrib.com/MGB7TQUZ5VD.html).

So when will "you are either with us or against us" turn into "you are either with us or you can't vote"? Or has it already, secretly?

Alarmist? Sure. But when it's not alarmist anymore, then it may be too late. And I don't really see the outraged comments I might have naively expected to see about the torture memo and related news from Iraq from intelligent and otherwise sensible people who have been supporting Bush and the neo-con agenda. So when will you be outraged? Ever? Or would even "you are either with us or you can't vote" be quite ok since it doesn't affect _you_?

I'm not sure exactly why your first reaction to it was that Stoller was an "anti-Semitic schmuck"

Because if you mentione Hitler or Nazis, you're an anti-semite. It's true that gratuitous comparisons to Hitler, Nazis, fascism, etc, are dumb and destructive to debate, but it would be a shame if Hitler's memory is at last so profane as to deny us its last decent use as a model of how civilised societies can go awry. Without models we're left to learn from first-hand experience.

gw: In 2000 I was an disenfranchised voter. I was one of the many victims of the "Moter Voter" program that was pushed by our Democratic Secretary of State with support from the Illinois Democratic Party. There were thousands of us that registered to vote when we renewed our licenses but the records were lost and we were turned away from the polls.

Can I hold President Clinton accountable for this, more identifiable with, totalitarian abuse? Your attempts, albeit channeled through Klieman, are nearly indentical to those cast upon President Reagan. In every policy, in every state, in every decision, the White House is reponsible.

The Tampa Tribune article is good. I'm getting it blown up and posterized so I can place this quote on my wall.

said Elliot Mincberg, legal director of People for the American Way Foundation, a liberal-oriented advocacy group.

First let me say that I th ink Stoller's critique is a bit overboard. Out of all the conservative blogs I read, your's is definitely one of the more rational and open ones. So for that, you definitely deserve a lot of credit.

I think JC basically hit the nail on the head. I mean, at what point do you start screaming? What point do you stop giving the admin the benefit of the doubt? Their goodwill is long used up and then some. What woudl have to happen (what if any are the neccessary conditions?)

Actually, Jeb - that's a good observation. Guilty until proven innocent, after all. It might take a mountain of posts though...and, this type of thing has been debated in other blogs, again and again. But I'll give it a try - tonight is one of the few nights I have time...

1. WMD claims - let's see. I'm doing this WITHOUT fact sourcing at the moment, so forgive me if I mis-attribute.
a. Niger-Uranium claim in the State of the Union. Was false - and was removed in speech PREVIOUS to the SOTU - so shouldn't have been there.
b. Mobile Labs - pushed by Powell - ended up being weather balloon stations after all...
c. Rice "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". True of course, but HIGHLY inflammatory, suggestive, and misleading. A lie by another name.
d. A whole host of statements about WMD by George Bush. Uggabugga has the list
here but you will have to scroll down.
2. Same tax cut different situations. I basically think this one is a slam-dunk, because it is obvious, but here goes:
a. Bush originally promoted his top-heavy tax cut (benefits weighted towards the rich), and the rationale was because people "deserved" it, or some such.
b. Then the rationale was, because we were in a depression, the year the top heavy tax cut got passed.
c. Then the next year, for the new cut, the rationale was - well, shoot. I forget. Something inane, I'm sure. Maybe someone can help me out here...
d. This is what Krugman got RIGHT, at least a year before anyone else, that the numbers that Bush's "economics" team was proposing, didn't add up. You COULDN'T have the first tax cut, and keep the surplus, which is what Bush was running on. And, it was totally false.
3. "Close up any transparency in their administration"
a. Cheney energy task force. Need I say more?
b. Current forced legal memos, that Ashcraft is basically daring Congress to come and get (which he can do, because it is a Republican congress).
c. The "inertia" of the Plame investigation - which after all, really only involves a small group of people, really.
4. Label the opposition stupid, wrong, treasonous
a. The 75% "negative" campaign ads against Kerry. 75%??
b. Not so much Bush himself, but things like Ann Coulter's "Treason" and the various Karl Rove tactics.
5. Economic projections -
a. It is better to refer to the actual economists like Brad Delong here, but the first two estimated budgets, were works of fiction.
b. The "estimated" costs for Iraq. Wolfowitz saying - "a few billion". How far off can you get.
6. Lies about the prescription Medicare bill
a. Stronga-armed the vote, based on a $400 billion ceiling.
b. Has a projection of the actual cost that was FAR higher than this $400 billion.
c. Intimidated professional staffer of (10? 15?) years into NOT giving this estimate to Congress.
7. Torture
a. Abu-Ghraib.
b. Gonzales memo's outlining "new" interrogation policies
c. Current legal memos, outlined by Wall Street Journal, that basically argure how you can torture without it being called torture.
d. Ashcroft's refusal to come clean with memos.
8. Post-war period, and ignoring advice.
a. General Shinseki
b. Anthony Zinni
c. The State Department year-long effort at post-victory analysis, completely dumped.

The self-delusions that some of you think is lucid analysis is amazing.

You know Bush didn't lie about the reasons for going into Iraq, but you say he did anyway; you learn nothing from history (at this time or later in the post WW II occupation of Germany, there were media voices saying it was all a failure) to pronounce the whole enterprise a failure; indeed, you almost seem to hope it will be a failure, perhaps because you believe that any harm done to the country will be easily recovered once your saintly party is returned to power.

Finally, while Blankely was, to repeat, clearly way out of bounds, the Republican decision to go on the offensive against Soros is perfectly legit.

I believe this is what Stoller is trying to get at. If you look at the criticism that the GOP and it's operatives have levelled at Soros, most of it is similarly beyond the pale of reason or decorum.

To make a slightly strained analogy, it's as if one basketball team's players are shanking the others, and you're saying, "those make-shift daggers are clearly out of bounds. On the other hand, this is a game of basketball."

By endorsing the end without divorcing it from the means (even as you register your mild distaste), it would seem you give a pass to the kind of politics which are literally tearing this country apart.

Hey, Jeb. You're here too? Wow! I notice, however, that you don't take Dan to task for "tendentious" -- surely an above-12-grade-reading-level word. And note, Glenn Reynolds in his MSNBC guest post refers to "hagiographies."

Too bad you didn't have Theodora Day as your high-school English teacher. Our summer reading included The New Yorker. We had to read it with a dictionary alongside, and were expected to come back to school in the fall with a list of new words we'd learned. I wasn't the only one of her students who got 800 on the English SAT.

If you have a chance, take a look at the uggabugga site - go down the site quickly, to go past the "snark", and go straight to the WMD section. There are 14 quotes, and that is only by George Bush, not to mention the backup from the rest of his administration.

But this is only one issue.

These things are important, and as much as you would like to label me, or others as victims of "self-delusion" to dismiss things - you need to take a hard look. For example, Brandon Mayfield - white guy, regular successful lawyer, who did happen to be Muslim. Absolute, total, and completely wrong incarceration. He was held without recourse, without a lawyer. Stuck. The Spanish authorities kept insisting - again and again - that the fingerprints did not match. But, the FBI wasn't listening. If the Spanish police had not gone PUBLIC with their conclusions, Brandon Mayfield may well still BE in prison, for the next untold number of years, without access, and then also be subject to "torture lght".

This is simply not the America that is an outgrowth of the Constitution. It's not. It's not right, for any administration. Brandon Mayfield could be you, or your cousin who married a Muslim, or your son. What then?

Okay, I've never posted a response to any of the online rhetoric I read, but tonight I'm making an exception because I just can't stand it anymore.

BradDad is right.

I was 16 when Ronald Wilson Reagan won his second term. I cried, convinced the world was going to end. History has certainly proved me wrong there.

What most of the commentors to this particular post fail to grasp is that there is a large contingent of voters out here that view this war on terror as THE ISSUE facing our country today.

Save the vitriol and conspiracy theories...my dad has you all beat.

The economy? Please....it's cyclical and no administration will bring it down. Term limits check that. (See also the Reagan legacy at any post on any news website today).

Education? State issue, ultimately. And despite being a registered Democrat in Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy is completely off base in asserting the administration has underfunded the No Child Left Behind Act. (Frankly, despite having voted for him two times, I'm concerned Ted is becoming unhinged - but I digress).

Gay Marriage? Not an Executive Branch issue. This will ultimately be decided by the courts, despite any action by the federal branch to enact an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment. And rightly so. Bring it on. Like other civil rights issues, the courts will decide that people in this country are entitled to live their lives free from discrimination.

So, what's left? Oh....international security? Brings me back to my point. This is the single most important issue facing this country today. You may not believe that, but that is your right.

Yeah, the war totally sucks. I have a family member over there so it hits home. But I have this to say to the people who claim those of us that supported the war initially are somehow blindingly continuing to support it now. What the hell was expected? It's war. Did anyone think this would be over in six months? If so, you're naive. It's not a gym membership for crying out loud. True, the news is grim, but to kill the entire enterprise because it's too hard is absolutely ridiculous. Certainly, the persecutors of the prison abuse in Iraq should be punished. And certainly any unlawful other acts should be ferreted out. But there is a forest throught the trees, people.

Like BradDad says, history will tell. So stop getting so up in arms over this or that post only to ALWAYS have it come back to the big LIE. You're defeating yourselves. JC - what on earth does the anti-semitic charges levelled against Dan by Stoller have to do with your rant? Talk policy with me, please, and forego the conspiracy theories. I'm so sick of it.

Don't bother responding. This is my one and only post ever. It took too much energy that could have gone elsewhere. My grandkids can find this post and critique it all they like. Until then, I will periodically read vitriol from the likes of JC and holler at my cat.

But it does seem like it is time for thoughtful people to take a stand. Dan, Is George Bush for four more years good for America? That is the question of the election, and you have given hints of your answer, but seem reluctant to face your real thoughts on the matter.

And I am not familar with Soros' book, and do agrree that he is not neccesarily a serious thinker. But Afganistan could be easier than Iraq because of its history. Ethnic tensions could be less and expectations could be lower. I don't know if this is the case, but the comparison does not seem to be the slam dunk you indicate.

mmm...didn't really think I spewed vitriol. I thought I was spewing, I don't know - talking points? What can I say, it's a slow Tuesday night for me...waiting on The Daily show...

I hear your point, that the US will survive,

The original issue, is at what point does anyone, a Republican, a Democrat, say "enough's enough?", given a clear pattern of incompetence and mendacity? Clearly, everyone has different points for this. I'm saying, given some of what I've laid out above (which no one has bothered to factually deny here, by the way, but only snipe at - that's fine - sniping has its place.) if it is true, what is the point that you go from "shaking head in disapproval" or "making helpful implementation suggestions", to saying, "that's it - I'm off this bus"?

I'll say "enough's enough" when the information has time to be treated with a touch of hindsight. You may think the war was predicated on lies. But many of us do not. Constant violation of UN orders (and Congressional Approval) was more than enough justification. The (despite now proved faulty-although I still am not convinced the jury is out on that issue) WMD intelligence was icing on the cake.

See, I'm bummed but not 'shaking my head in disapproval'. I am not naive enough to think that there wouldn't be bad news connected with this war. I'm not by any means saying the current tack over there shouldn't be revised. It's a monumental undertaking that I truly believe we cannot fail.

And I would try to factually deny your 'talking points' but much of it is based on the supposition that Bush/Cheney are inherently evil liars pushing their secret conspiracy re: Saddam and Halliburton on the entire world. I have no response to that. In fact, no one can respond to that. It's not sniping, it's just that my response would be "are you serious?".

Don't take it personally - both my boyfriend and father share your 'argument' and I can't respond to them either because they are both the sort to block out any 'conversation' that they can't agree with.

I am not sure why Prof. Drezner even felt the need to respond to Matt Stoller's alleged thesis. There's nothing to it except some cheap ad-hominem smears ("cowardly ilk" etc.), and the suggetion that Drezner is carrying water for anti-Semites is absurd on its face. The specious and gratuitous Hitler reference merely strips off whatever thin patina of credibility Stoller had remaining after the first words of his article were penned. Were I in Drezner's place, I would have linked the article with minimal commentary, allowing it to discredit itself.

For a moment, forget the WMD claims, and remember General Shinseki (sp?). An experienced Army man claiming hundreds of thousands of troops to take on Iraq. Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz said "wildly off the mark" and made the General retire.

War is hell, but we sure could have been better off if we listened to real military folks instead of deluded neo-con dreamers. Case #2? Oil revenues. Why aren't they paying the bills like the DoD folks said it would?

Case #3? Condi Rice. She is supposed to be heading up the Iraq operation. Where is she? Why isn't she the real voice on what's happening there?

Whether or not the case for war was good is now a moot point. We need to focus on how the occupation/handover is going. It sucks. For every school opened there is an abused prisoner.

Now as to the point raised by SomeCallMeTim et al., can't speak for anyone else, but I won't admit to any mistakes on Iraq because I have made none. The worst I'd have to admit to is believing the various claims made by U.S. intelligence, European intelligence, former UN inspectors, Iraqi defectors, and everyone except the Iraqi regime, that Iraq was in fact in possession of WMD, and more importantly, was intent on manufacturing more. The former assertion -- never disputed by any credible source until after the U.S. invasion -- is the only one that is in doubt. We clearly know that Iraq has manufactured and used chemical weapons, and were it not for the widely condemned "Israeli aggression" of 1981, would have had nuclear weapons. We also found out, in the wake of Iraq's disastrously premature invasion of Kuwait, that their nuclear program was much farther along than anyone had thought.

Against this plus the utter lack of cooperation with UN inspectors from Iraq all we had to weigh was the insistence of the Ba'ath government that they had no prohibited weapons. Well, sorry, gentlemen, but this isn't a situation where I give the benefit of the doubt to the other side. There was no mistake: given the information available at the time, invasion and forcible disarmament was the proper course. The lack of WMD -- if it truly is lacking -- at worst, shows a systemic failure on the part of the intelligence services of multiple nations and the UN. To me, that merely proves the necessity of removing doubt when situations like this occur.

This is to say nothing, of course, on the topic of the lesson taught to nations such as Lybia, which has (by pure coincidence, I'm sure!) decided that maybe making the U.S. all worried about its weapons programs isn't such a hot idea. And through that, of course, we found out the nefarious activities of the good Pakistani scientist Dr. Khan, selling nuclear know-how to scummy regimes for fun and profit. Weird, isn't it, how one little invasion uncovered more nuclear hanky-panky than years of UN and IAEA inspections?

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, most of us thought it had a WMD program, or at least had strong suspicions. Now, we can be sure that it doesn't. That alone makes it worth the cost of the invasion. I supported it then, I support it now, and I apologize for neither. It was, quite simply, the right and sensible thing to do. Only those fool enough to believe that "international frameworks" and meaningless treaties bring "world peace" would be bothered by it.

And good Lord, when it comes to admitting mistakes, surely the "anti-war" side should have been out in front first, with the apologies and the heaping helpings of crow? Wasn't it supposed to take months of bloody fighting to get to Baghdad? Weren't there going to be hundreds of thousands of refugees? American casualties by the thousands? The Arab Street inflamed like an irritated hemorrhoid? I mean, have we already forgotten the imbecilic MoveOn.org "Daisy" ads, threatening Iraqi use of nuclear weapons? Instead, the U.S. took Baghdad in what, three weeks, and less than a thousand Americans have died in over a year of war and occupation. I mean, the conflict is so small that every injury to an individual Coalition soldier is deemed newsworthy, and yet the same people that promised us rivers of blood and Afghanistan Vietnam-style "quagmire" are acting as if they foresaw the future with eagle-eyed precision. One can but stand in awe of arrogance so impressive, and so meritless.

"What most of the commentors to this particular post fail to grasp is that there is a large contingent of voters out here that view this war on terror as THE ISSUE facing our country today."

Agreed, which is one reason I opposed the war on Iraq.

"Constant violation of UN orders (and Congressional Approval) was more than enough justification."

Maybe, but it was not a central argument presented to the American people. If, instead of talking about WMD, ties to AQ, and mushroom clouds over St. Louis, the administration had talked exclusively or even primarily about UN violations, I suspect there would have been much less support.

Mr.Drezner: Even if Soros is, as you say, inconsistent about what is required to suppress terrorism and wrong about Afghanistan being a better candidate for nation-building than Iraq, how does that make him a "loon"? Can a critic of the Bush adminstration be wrong without being called insane, even by a so-called moderate conservative? By the way, calling someone a "loon" doesn't quite fit with your reputation for civility (which I previously was inclined to think deserved).

So many thoughtful people for Bush.
So many thoughtful people against him.

The thoughtful people for him seem willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, to understand if not applaud his efforts, to realize that the US is at war against an enemy for whom suicide and murder are virtue, to be less inclined to panic when things don't appear to going as well as one would like, to be skeptical of the media's generally consistently tortured representation of events, to understand that history must be viewed forward and not backward.

The thoughtful people arrayed against him seem hypercritical of his every move and argument, to impugn his every motive, to deny or disregard the war in which the US is involved and, to ignore the nature of the enemy and the threat it presents, to view history by looking backward. They clearly do not give Bush or his supporters any benefit of the doubt.

So it seems to me.

The former seem to be more of this world, more realistic about what can be achieved and why it is being attempted.

The latter seem to me motivated by perfectionism and by conspiratorial thinking, and quick to condemn it where perfection is found wanting.

It has been said (some say by Voltaire) that the perfect (or the best) is the enemy of the good.

I imagine we'll find out in November which group of thoughtful people is larger.

I continue to be amazed by people who remain mired in September 10th thinking, people who believe we are not or do not need to be at war. To not recognize that Arabic fascism is the same threat to us that the fascists were in WW2 is astoundingly, willfully dumb.

I have come to believe that, thoughtful types or not, many on the left aren't merely in disagreement, they're on the other side.

If you have ever read any of Soros's "serious thinking on international politics" you would have to agree with Dan, he is not really a serious thinker. The books I have read by Soros on political theory were, if I remember correctly illreasoned, illogical and not terribly coherent.

I have a soft spot in my heart for Soros, he funds a myriad of organizations in Eastern and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union that have done great things. I have even worked for them there, and have had the opportunity to meet him a few times. His work there has been tremendous, and his financial writings have been pretty good, but I think he believes that because he is a good international investor and philanthropist he has some special insight into world politics, he might, but it does not come across in his writings.

He comes across as if he is just writing what he thinks, with no reflection. I would hazard a guess that he has not spent a lot of time immersed in the academic side of the field of international relations. He has his perspective, but that is only a small part of the picture. He could add a very valuable perspective to the discipline if he did not think that he knows everything.

To me this is why he is not really a serious thinker. It gets back to the argument about having expertise in one field leading you to believe that you have expertise in another field. In his case they are close to each other, but not quite the same, and that is where the breakdown comes.

JC said "For example, Brandon Mayfield - white guy, regular successful lawyer, who did happen to be Muslim. Absolute, total, and completely wrong incarceration. He was held without recourse, without a lawyer. Stuck. The Spanish authorities kept insisting - again and again - that the fingerprints did not match. But, the FBI wasn't listening. If the Spanish police had not gone PUBLIC with their conclusions, Brandon Mayfield may well still BE in prison, for the next untold number of years, without access, and then also be subject to "torture lght"."
This is cosmic analysis to use as an example to support your objections to the Bush Administration. Brandon Mayfield was just as likely to have been detained, held, without counsel, at an undiclosed location, without due process as a result of law that preceded the swearing in of President Bush. Mayfield's detainment was the result of a technicality, a software glitch as the FBI spokesman reported. The initial Spanish objections were a result in the difference between the fingerpring points that the Spanish and Interpol require and the points the FBI requires. They're two different values that again preceded the Bush Administration.

It's interesting to watch Mr. Bush's attackers claim he lied about WMD, apparently oblivious to what's going on in the world currently, much less historically.

Just this morning comes news that UN weapons experts have found 20 engines used in banned Iraqi missiles in a scrap yard in Jordan, along with other equipment that could be used to make weapons of mass destruction. According tot he reports, the team was following up on that earlier discovery of another Al Samoud 2 missile engine in the Dutch port of Rotterdam.

I have a feeling you've not heard about that one, as either. Perhaps you've not heard, that they've found mustard gas and Sarin there, as well.

An interesting ommission in a group like this. Frankly, I epxected more.

Bithead: I'd be cautious in using the UNMOVIC report to make a case to support the White House policy on Iraqi WMD. The report says among other things that these engines appear to have arrived after the removal of Saddam Hussien along with tons of other scrap metal. I'm not sure who is checking this stuff, but the report says that the material is checked for weight, explosives and chem/bio concerns.

The report makes it look like the US is failing to conduct and sieze the most dangerous of all the Iraqi ordinance in violations of the sanctions.

Here are some comments, all by Republican senators (and I'm not even including McCain). Read them, digest them, think about them. These people, at least, are starting to get it. They aren't quite there yet, but at least they are starting to doubt.

The blind faith in the administration expressed by some of the commentators here is simply misguided.

"Military action is necessary to defeat serious and immediate threats to our national security. But the war on terrorism will not be won through attrition, particularly since military action will often breed more terrorists and more resentment of the United States."

Even if Soros is, as you say, inconsistent about what is required to suppress terrorism and wrong about Afghanistan being a better candidate for nation-building than Iraq, how does that make him a "loon"? Can a critic of the Bush adminstration be wrong without being called insane, even by a so-called moderate conservative? By the way, calling someone a "loon" doesn't quite fit with your reputation for civility (which I previously was inclined to think deserved).

That's what set me off. Calling someone insane who is clearly not to score political points is central to this mindset.

Pogo: I continue to be amazed by people who remain mired in September 10th thinking

That would be people like Bush, Cheney and the rest of the neo-cons who were thinking on September 10th that we needed to invade Iraq, right?

Yes, it's quite amazing that they managed to remain mired in that kind of thinking even after the events of September 11th!

people who believe we are not or do not need to be at war.

But at war with WHOM, that is the question! Iraq is the wrong war. It is not helping, but hurting us in the war on terror.

It's one thing to disagree with this assessment, but it's utterly disingenious to keep accusing those of us who actually want to hunt down the terrorists that we are "weak on terror" because we are against the distraction caused by the Iraq war and its aftermath.

To not recognize that Arabic fascism is the same threat to us that the fascists were in WW2 is astoundingly, willfully dumb.

Actually, it's astoundingly and willfully dumb to lump Arab fascism (as in Baathism, which does indeed have some links to WWII fascism) and Islamist fundamentalist terrorism together. The Islamists were fighting the Baathists. They are quite happy that we got rid of them for them, because the fascists in Iraq and Syria were actually containing the terrorists somewhat. Not that this was really a desirable or stable state, but what our government has turned it into is an even less desirable and even less stable state.

Astoundingly and willfully dumb? You bet!

I have come to believe that, thoughtful types or not, many on the left aren't merely in disagreement, they're on the other side.

There we go again - "you are either with us or against us".

So when are you going to propose to start rounding up "liberals" - or anybody who opposes the war or even anybody who opposes any part of the administration's policy? I mean, if you truly believe that they are "on the other side", i.e. working with or for the terrorists, wouldn't that be a logical conclusion? What's stopping you? Or did I somehow misunderstand that "on the other side" bit?

This thread is an example of precisely what frustrates me. About half the comments amount to “No mistakes were made.”

E. Nough’s comments to me are a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Let’s just go through the post briefly:

1. Everyone thought that Iraq had WMD, and was planning to make more.

My response before the war: who cares? The only weapons that should ever worry the U.S. are nukes (and for a variety of reasons, not even them that much). We’re just too big and too strong for anyone without nukes to hurt us in any significant way. So, unless someone is really suicidal – and this includes not just the individual terrorists, but also the provider of any help to the terrorists (we connected OBL and 9/11 pretty quick) - we are unlikely to be attacked by methods that would allow us to justify a truly bloody (say, nuclear?) response.

Even if Saddam was that suicidal, who cares? Chemical and biological weapons are really sh*tty for terrorists looking to kill Americans. You need everyone to either stay still in enclosed spaces or a sophistication in weaponizing biological weapons that no one seems to have. Look at it this way: the anthrax attacks killed, what, seven people? The sarin attack in Tokyo (in enclosed space, too) killed five. Let’s agree that, unless a weapon averages more deaths per terrorist attack than the number of bodies put up by two middle school kids with access to a grandfather’s gun cabinet, we aren’t going to create foreign policy based on our fears of that weapon.

And let's be honest - if Iraq were acquiring nukes, Israel would have handled it, b/c they have more reason to fear Arab nukes, more will to do something about it, and less to lose (it's not like they aren't pretty well hated in that neck of the woods already).

2. Libya and Pakistan, and everyone’s had a Come To Jesus moment regarding WMD.

Is this a joke? If I’m any other country in the world with interests that are not wholly in parallel with the U.S., I look at the invasion of Iraq, the negotiation with N. Korea, and the alliance with Pakistan, and I realize that the thing I need most in the world is a nuclear weapon. That seems to be the best guarantor against American invasion. If I’m such a country, I’m happy to tell the US whatever it wants to hear about my plans – but I’m looking to acquire a nuke. Either that, or I’ve realized I will never get a nuke, so I make a grand announcement about my epiphany and try to get paid for what I was going to do anyway (see Libya).

It’s also been an open secret for at least a decade that Pakistan was selling nuclear technology. Hell, I knew it, and I’m as uninformed as they come. Next you’ll be telling me that, b/c of this war, the former Sovs have acknowledged that they don’t have precise knowledge about where all their nuclear material is at the moment.

3. “Wasn’t it supposed to take months of bloody fighting to get to Baghdad?”

Don’t attribute the opinions of some against the war to everyone against the war. My opinion, prior to the war, was that you, me, and the lucky fan sitting in Seat 44E could have been the generals and we would have won in under a month. Because the great strength of our military is not its élan (which I’m sure it has plenty of), but its technology and the training of its personnel. I think the general populace’s over/under on taking Baghdad was less that two weeks.

The problem was always about what to do after Saddam fell. This Administration and its supporters thought that they’d create a democracy. I thought that the first Bush Administration was probably right – that Saddam was a bad guy, but he gave needed stability to Iraq, and was a relatively predictable guy. Iraq without Saddam is like a pile of money (oil reserves, historic importance) left in a crowded and poor street – guaranteed chaos as soon as the cops are gone. And we’ll be out of Iraq in under two years. Heck, the Kurds are already complaining that they are about being treated unfairly by the new government – that wasn’t foreseeable?

And yet, despite what has happened, the side that was so scared of a tinpot dictator that was no threat to us tells us we aren’t tough enough (instead of learning to live with uncertainty). And they tell us that we are naïve if we don’t believe Saddam would have attacked us (based on what is his past?). And in ten years, we’ll be having this conversation again because we haven’t settled what level of risk to the US is required before we preemptively (or, actually, whatever is just before “preemptive”) invade another country.

Sorry for the length. Believe it or not, I actually cut it. I promise to be pithy from now on.

"Bithead: I'd be cautious in using the UNMOVIC report to make a case to support the White House policy on Iraqi WMD. The report says among other things that these engines appear to have arrived after the removal of Saddam Hussien along with tons of other scrap metal. I'm not sure who is checking this stuff, but the report says that the material is checked for weight, explosives and chem/bio concerns. The report makes it look like the US is failing to conduct and sieze the most dangerous of all the Iraqi ordinance in violations of the sanctions."

That it looks like it arrived in Jordan during the occupation is not much of an indication on when it was last in usable form. Assuming this stuff was removed from service before we invaded, it could have been anywhere between then and now. Consider the report from the Times this morning;

Equipment and material that could have been used to produce banned weapons and long-range missiles have been emptied from Iraqi sites since the war started and shipped abroad, the head of the United Nations inspectors office told the Security Council on Wednesday.
Demetrius Perricos, deputy to the former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and now the acting executive chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, told a closed session of the council that many of the items bear tags placed by United Nations inspectors as suspect dual-use materials having capabilities for creating harmless consumer products as well as unconventional weapons.

Mr. Perricos accompanied his briefing with a report showing satellite photos of a fully built-up missile site near Baghdad in May 2003 and the same site denuded in February 2004.

Catalonia: And I suppose jet airplanes piloted by a few crazies are of little concern, as well.

What an utterly silly remark. Those airplanes were American airplanes, not some secret weapons secretly constructed by a secretive dictator somewhere in the Middle East.

My point, professor, is that if even non-WMD technologies can be used to devastating effect, then it is ridiculous to discount the dangers of WMD.

And of course another point is that you should guard against ridiculous statements, as non-partisans will cease to listen to your other arguments when you make them, or rather, only the choir will continue to listen.

What an intellectual accomplishment! You willfully misunderstand something, attack it and then declare victory and leave.

The pot calling the kettle black, except the kettle isn’t even black.

This seems to be turning into a trend among the remaining Bush supporters. Shall we conclude that conservatives have run out of arguments and have decided to simply cling to their ideology?

I voted for Nader, professor, and I will vote for Bush only because Kerry hasn’t demonstrated a viable, non-reactionary strategy for dealing with Islamofascism. (And I am not a conservative. A former Democratic, to be sure, but quite liberal on most issues. Perhaps we should engage in a discussion on the true catalyst of the anti-war dead-end worldview: rank, festering anti-conservatism, aka political bigotry from the New Reactionaries. [hat tip to Roger L. Simon for coining the term.])

Bithead: It is mind-boggling how willing you are to show to everybody here what a poor grasp of the facts you have.

Even after Brennan Stout warned you that the story you picked up this morning might actually prove embarrassing to the Bush administration, you repeat it - proving again that it is indeed embarrassing to the Bush administration. The UN inspectors had catalogued dual use materials. We knew where they were and that they weren't doing us or anybody else any harm. Now they are gone. A fantastic step forward in our efforts of making the World a safer place! And the long-range missiles (on which there is too little information in the article to tell for sure whether they were being produced or already there) - those aren't WMDs, those are "banned weapons" only because their range exceeds a certain limit set by the UN.

Then you address, presumably me, as "GV", put words in my mouth that I never used ("nothing short of nukes are a threat to us" - SomeCallMeTim wrote something to that effect, not me) and pigheadedly repeat the willful misunderstanding that Catalonia committed and that I complained about.

So, yes, other weapons can indeed be a more serious threat than biological and chemical weapons. That's exactly why it is so utterly silly to jump up and down in euphoria just because some old sarin canisters have been found in Iraq. They are no real threat to us. Intelligent terrorists are a threat. We went after them in Afghanistan, but then we diverted funds and focus to a dictator who no longer posed any serious threat to us.

THAT's the issue here. Not whether we should fight the terrorists, but how. Bush went after the wrong target in Iraq. Bush is endangering all of us as a result.

Here is another quote from one of the articles about the weapons parts found in Jordan:

"The removal of these materials from Iraq raises concerns with regard to proliferation risks ... thereby also rendering the task of the disarmament of Iraq and its eventual confirmation, more difficult," Perricos said.

So we ended up helping potential terrorists get hold of WMD materials. If the war in Iraq was part of the war on terrorism and other people are talking about others being on the wrong side, it kind of makes you think whose side our administration is on, doesn't it?

"And I suppose jet airplanes piloted by a few crazies are of little concern, as well. What serious damage could they ever do?," and
"My point, professor, is that if even non-WMD technologies can be used to devastating effect, then it is ridiculous to discount the dangers of WMD,"

and I'm wondering, are you suggesting we preemtively invade any country that (a) doesn't like us, and (b) refuses to stop making box-cutters? Because that could get really expensive.

As an alternative, maybe we could just show some sack and save preemptive invasions for those situations where, you know, the country was actually at serious risk. The unnatural death of 3000 people is a horrible, horrible, tragedy, and we should take all reasonable steps to prevent its reoccurance. This includes chasing down the criminals involved in this; it doesn't include chasing down the criminals not involved in any way in it. If we're going to attack people (more than) preemptively, let's save it for people who are real threats to the United States.

gw: The mistakes of the Bush Administration in the post-war period are no reason to discredit the obligations of the United Nations and its member nations to uphold the terms of the 1991 cease-fire and subsequent disarmament. I rest that your real objections precede UNSC R.1441 when saying "We knew where they were and that they weren't doing us or anybody else any harm". This despite the fact that even after the inspectors entered Iraq with the passing of R.1441 they could not even locate the weapons that they had previously catalogued in Iraq's possession. Have I misconstrued your point?

Second, you repeat another common myth.

"We went after them in Afghanistan, but then we diverted funds and focus to a dictator who no longer posed any serious threat to us."

I'll start by seeking to qualify the 'them'. Them being Al Qaida, them being the Taliban or Them being regional destabilizers? I assume you are likely referring to Al Qaida, but according to repeated testimony by the DoD officials and the Joint Chiefs of Staff there has been no "diversion" of funds or resources away from Afghanistan to Iraq. Perhaps you share the view of Rep. Mike Ryan(D-OH) when told General Myers that he wasn't accepting the JSC assertion that funds and resources were not diverted and instead maintaining his own personal belief that they were.

Catalonia: if even non-WMD technologies can be used to devastating effect, then it is ridiculous to discount the dangers of WMD.

But SomeCallMeTim discussed the justification for going to war in Iraq. Should we go to war against a country because it may have biological or chemical weapons programs? His answer was "no" - because they are not a serious enough threat to us. (Incidentally, lots of countries have such programs. Iraq stood out only in that it had used chemical weapons in the past. But that was in battlefield situations where they can do a lot more damage than in a terrorist attack.)

The potential use of airplanes as weapons is irrelevant in this context. Many countries have airplanes. Our own airplanes were used against us.

As I already pointed out before, "Islamofascism" is a misnomer - at least, if it's supposed to include the Qaeda terrorists who are our most dangerous enemies right now.

Perhaps we should engage in a discussion on the true catalyst of the anti-war dead-end worldview: rank, festering anti-conservatism, aka political bigotry from the New Reactionaries.

And we would do this so that you and your fellow non-partisan, not really conservative, ex-Nader voters can continue to ignore all arguments made in this thread?

It's really quite amazing how in the face of open hatred for anything remotely "liberal" that some people have exhibited here, a self-declared "not a conservative" manages to sneak in yet another whining comment about "festering anti-conservatism".

There is a link on the uggabugga site (to which JC referred) to a fittingly titled article:Conservative Crybabies.

I think this is turning into an interesting social phenomenon worthy of further study: How the people who are in charge of our country are recklessly wrecking our country and at the same time complaining bitterly at every turn that the toothless "liberal" media is after them and that it's the media's fault if they aren't able to wreck things even more.

1. They lie about the reasons for a war, convincing the general public and reasons that turn out not to be true.

Those would be the very same reasons given by the opposition party when they were in power and decided to make regime change our national policy.

2. For wildly different economic situations, they, again and again, trot out the VERY SAME economic solution - that just happens to benefit the people they are associated with.

You mean like those who favored increasing taxes when times were good (“hey the rich can afford it and we need to fund social programs”) and when times were bad (“hey the rich can afford it and we need to fund social programs”)?

3. They close up any possible transparency in their administration - blocking at every turn, at every point, any openness in government.

“Release the hounds, Smithers.”

4. They label the opposition, in every case, wrong, stupid, if not simply treasonous.

Rhetoric which ironically enough has pretty much been coming almost exclusively from the opposition party and their would-be presidential candidates Messirs Gore, Clark, Kerry, and Dean.

5. Their economic projections that allow them to push their tax program, are utterly based in deceit.

Sort of like having the Department of Commerce spike the economic numbers during the 2000 election to give your successor a better chance.

6. They lie about the effects of a new medical program - again, to push it through Congress to enactment.

Good thing it was defeated so soundly in 1993. Unless you were talking about the original Medicare and Medicaid programs.

7. On their watch, a movement towards torture (or torture-lite) almost becomes (or possibly becomes) part of the new legal structure - something that no one in their right mind though possible, years ago.

I fully support the opposition party campaigning on a “we promise not to be so rough when we interrogate the freedom fight, err insurgents” platform.

8. In the war gotten into because of lies, these people absolutely ignore the "post-war" period, making the already risky chance of success, much lower?

You mean like voting against funding body armor for the troops, that kind of “absolutely ignore[ing] the "post-war" period”? Or deliberately ignoring the positive news in order to demoralize the public during an election year into thinking that “victories” constitute “defeats” ala Tet Offensive?posted by: Thorley Winston on 06.09.04 at 05:08 PM [permalink]

LOL!
Should we invade a country because they have bio-weapons?

Not for that alone, no.
But Iraq had far more going for it; They had them in direct violation of several UN mandates which were Iraq explicit, and they had shown the ability to use such weaponry against the rest of the world.

Now, do we, as the lone superpower, have a responsibilty for such matters, do you suppose?

I mean, at some point on this chain, a move away from the isolationist dogma is required.

And in this case, Bostonian, the thread has devolved into refighting the question of who was right in March, 2003. And, believe me, there are just a lot of people who just do not remember what was on the table then.

The problem is, the overnight folks originally tilted the thread in a very interesting direction -- what is the duty of the public intellectual?

I know I have one very big beef with the pro-war group -- they did not warn us of the consequences of trying to wage war with 120,000, rather than the Rand Corporation's 400,000. I really think our proprietor believed that we would some how come up with the troops, probably through the United Nations. It would have been nice to have that (or whatever) assumption he had, because then we could have ended with an honest discussion of whteher the liberation of Iraq was worth the probable cost to the United States in men and material. My guess is that,if we had had the talk,we would not have had the war or, we would have had the war with less complaints. In either case, we would have been better off.

You bet! I was referring to these particular dual-use materials that now turned up in Jordan and that had been "tagged" by the UN inspectors.

You, on the other hand, are presumably referring to chemical weapons that Iraq was known to have had from the 80s, but wasn't able to account for anymore. It is quite interesting that the fact that weapons were NOT found is now turned into an argument for the invasion. (Gee, maybe Iraq actually destroyed some of those old weapons? Maybe they weren't very good at keeping records? Maybe they felt humiliated about having to provide proof of everything they were doing in their own country? But, no, we'll just assume the worst and PRETEND that we know that these weapons still exist and even where they are!)

Here is a link to a page with lots of links to details about the weapons inspection program and its progress:

A specific instance of that "common myth" - that funds were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq _illegally_ (which I didn't even say) - is based on an allegation contained in Woodward's book. Which, incidentally, is number one on the recommended reading list on the official Bush campaign web site! (So they are spreading myths there, aren't they? ;-) )

Nobody seems to dispute that $700 million were diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq - the administration just claims that it was authorized to do so and that it wasn't done illegally.

I suppose you could argue that if the Iraq war hadn't been started we still wouldn't have spent more effort on Afghanistan. That's possible, but it would just go to show that this administration is not serious about fighting the war on terror. It has other priorities.

But SomeCallMeTim discussed the justification for going to war in Iraq. Should we go to war against a country because it may have biological or chemical weapons programs?

Don’t be an idiot. The argument was never that we should go to war only because Iraq was pursuing WMD. It was the confluence of WMD, terror, and aggression that was the concern (among others). If this is your idea of sophistication you are utterly ill-equipped to understand how Iraq fits into the broader context of Middle Eastern political pathologies and how they relate to Islamofascism in general and international terrorism in particular.

As I already pointed out before, "Islamofascism" is a misnomer - at least, if it's supposed to include the Qaeda terrorists who are our most dangerous enemies right now.

You may have pointed it out, but that does not make it so. ‘Islamofascism’, while an imperfect term, is as good a moniker as any, particularly since it encompasses closely related movements like Baathist fascism and anti-Western pan-Arabism. Spare me the semantic quibbles, please.

And we would do this so that you and your fellow non-partisan, not really conservative, ex-Nader voters can continue to ignore all arguments made in this thread?

I cannot speak for others, but as for me, I have not ignored your arguments, per se. It is simply that I’ve heard them repeated ad nauseum over the last (nearly) 18 months. You cannot make a single point that I cannot answer, and answer quite well. I suspect that is the case for everybody here who is not anti-war. The mere fact that you would even consider your points insightful and unanswerable speaks to your intellectual obtuseness. The policy of regime change in Iraq has been around for a very long time, and pre-emption isn’t new. Stop pretending it’s a Bush Administration invention.

It's really quite amazing how in the face of open hatred for anything remotely "liberal" that some people have exhibited here, a self-declared "not a conservative" manages to sneak in yet another whining comment about "festering anti-conservatism".

Hatred for anything REMOTELY liberal? What the hell are you talking about? Methinks you’re projecting.

And it is quite interesting that one who complains of being labeled “for the terrorists” for merely opposing the war also labels others conservative for merely pointing out that most anti-war nincompoopery is the result of pedestrian anti-conservatism, or anti-Americanism (or both) in the case of foreigners. Once again, the pot calling the kettle black even thought the kettle isn’t black.

There is a link on the uggabugga site (to which JC referred) to a fittingly titled article:
Conservative Crybabies.

I think this is turning into an interesting social phenomenon worthy of further study: How the people who are in charge of our country are recklessly wrecking our country and at the same time complaining bitterly at every turn that the toothless "liberal" media is after them and that it's the media's fault if they aren't able to wreck things even more.

As I said previously, you lose your audience when you make ridiculous, hyperbolic statements like “recklessly wrecking our country”. I’m far, far too intelligent, well educated, and experienced to buy into such demagoguery. I have plenty of problems with many Bush Administration policies, but ‘recklessly wrecking our country’ is a moronic statement that only a partisan would make. Or somebody generally clueless (or perhaps young).

Not impressive in the slightest.

Bostonian,

Has anybody else noticed that whenever there is a long comment thread here or elsewhere, it's about the war, no matter what the original topic was?

That’s because for the most strident opposition, the Iraq War is a proxy war over other issues. More a defense of the faith, in my opinion, although there are exceptions. Thus my use of the term 'New Reactionaries'.

Thorley Winston: So the best you can do on JC's eight points is employ the conservative crybaby defense and (falsely) accuse the previous Democratic admin and this year's Democratic presidential candidates of being no better as far as 1 through 6 are concerned, then crack jokes about 7 (the torture issue) and repeat a Bush campaign lie against Kerry in 8?

Catalonia: It was the confluence of WMD, terror, and aggression that was the concern (among others).

Use of WMD in the past, aggression in the past, and very weak links to terrorists.

Spare me the semantic quibbles, please.

Just because you call something semantic quibbles doesn't make it so. You seem to refuse to understand that the Arab fascists and the Qaeda terrorists have very different goals. Lumping them all together leads to exactly the wrong Middle East policy that the administration has been engaging in.

You cannot make a single point that I cannot answer, and answer quite well.

Well, how about, for starters, answering a single point, preferably "quite well"?

It would also be interesting to hear what you liked about Nader in 2000 and why you will note vote for him again this time.

And it is quite interesting that one who complains of being labeled “for the terrorists” for merely opposing the war also labels others conservative for merely pointing out that most anti-war nincompoopery is the result of pedestrian anti-conservatism, or anti-Americanism (or both) in the case of foreigners.

Oh, I'm sorry, I really didn't realize that anybody here would take offense at being called a "conservative".

But, of course, when you listen to the campaign ads, the ones from Kerry are full of accusations against Bush of being a "conservative" (while Bush would never label Kerry a "liberal" because that's actually something positive?!).

I guess we _are_ perceiving the World in surprisingly different ways...

Once again, the pot calling the kettle black even thought the kettle isn’t black.

May I remind you what I was responding to? Here, this is what you "not a conservative", "not a black kettle" wrote:

Perhaps we should engage in a discussion on the true catalyst of the anti-war dead-end worldview: rank, festering anti-conservatism, aka political bigotry from the New Reactionaries.

Dead-end worldview, huh? Rank, festering anti-conservatism? Political bigotry? New Reactionaries? But you, of course, are just stating facts whereas others are engaging in mean-spirited partisanship. Right.

(Oh, and I'm "gw", not "GV", "qv" or "qw". I do realize the font makes it hard to read. "gw" are my initials - first name, last name. Not to be confused with GW Bush. ;-) )

Dan Drezner: "Oh, please -- an empire that sent in fewer troops than was necessary? An administration that now seems hell-bent on getting out of the country? Where's your evidence for empire?"

How do either of those points suggest that this administration has no imperial aspirations? Empires never send in too few troops? An empires never decides to bug out of a country it shouldn't have invaded? Maybe the last sentence should read, "Where's your evidence of competence?".

Use of WMD in the past, aggression in the past, and very weak links to terrorists.

Ah. So let me get this straight: Saddam used WMD in the past, so therefore we shouldn’t be concerned he will use them in the future. Saddam was aggressive in the past, so therefore we shouldn’t be concerned he will be aggressive in the future. Saddam had very weak links to terrorists, so therefore he will maintain only weak links to terrorists.

Is that the extent of your argument? That Saddam’s past behavior should not be used as a weathervane for future behavior? Interesting cognitive technique you’re employing.

You seem to refuse to understand that the Arab fascists and the Qaeda terrorists have very different goals. Lumping them all together leads to exactly the wrong Middle East policy that the administration has been engaging in.

I could argue that the goals in effect aren’t very different, but instead: You seem to refuse to understand that the Arab fascists and the al Qaeda terrorists are different facets of the same problem. Failing to deal with them both leads exactly to the wrong ME policy that anti-war dead-enders have been advocating. [More accurately, dealing with them both is a riskier but potentially far more effective long-term policy.]

Well, how about, for starters, answering a single point, preferably "quite well"?

So far it hasn’t been necessary, as you aren’t making any particularly insightful points. When you cite Saddam’s use of WMD in the past as evidence that Saddam’s use of WMD aren’t a concern for the future, well then, you’re hardly worth the effort. As I implied in previous posts, it is no longer anything rational that drives anti-war rhetoric. More an exercise in faith and partisanship, not reason.

It would also be interesting to hear what you liked about Nader in 2000 and why you will note vote for him again this time.

I liked Nader’s rabble-rousing in 2000. I thoughtful it was useful to stir the pot because I felt the parties had become ossified, essentially identical in many ways. What changed my opinion, and starkly highlighted key differences in the major parties, was 9/11. It was the Democratic party’s reaction to 9/11 that has driven me to Independent status, and it is continuing Republican shenanigans that keep me from their ranks, as well. My attitude is similar regarding liberalism and conservatism in general.

Oh, I'm sorry, I really didn't realize that anybody here would take offense at being called a "conservative".

I didn’t imply it was offensive, I merely pointed out that you are complaining of that in which you engage. And you presume that those who are pro-war are ipso facto conservative. That is not necessarily so. In fact, that you presume this illustrates your partisanship, which is to say it ultimately illustrates your unseriousness about national security (i.e., political tribalism trumps security).

May I remind you what I was responding to? Here, this is what you "not a conservative", "not a black kettle" wrote: Perhaps we should engage in a discussion on the true catalyst of the anti-war dead-end worldview: rank, festering anti-conservatism, aka political bigotry from the New Reactionaries.

Dead-end worldview, huh? Rank, festering anti-conservatism? Political bigotry? New Reactionaries? But you, of course, are just stating facts whereas others are engaging in mean-spirited partisanship. Right.

I am still fairly liberal, but I am not anti-conservative, and I have never been so (i.e., I was a moderate Democrat). I am not a political bigot, although I clearly see a problem with circa 1960/70s liberalism, which has become reactionary, or regressive. That is the dead end of which I speak. In point of fact I am pro-choice, pro-environment, against the death penalty, for the legalization of marijuana, etc., etc., etc. Hardly conservative. I simply find shrill partisanship counterproductive, dangerous, and indicative of a deeper pathology, thus the use of the terms ‘rank’ and ‘festering’. And I see it coming from the Left. That is not political bigotry. Perhaps you should look up the word, as in this case getting the semantics correct seems particularly apropos.

I wish you'd deal with the moral consequences of endorsing the people who have endorsed torture, but since you won't, well, that's really my point. You don't really seem to care about that sort of thing.

And for the record, when you call someone a 'loon', you are calling them insane. Word choice, mon ami.

3) Oh, please -- an empire that sent in fewer troops than was necessary? An administration that now seems hell-bent on getting out of the country? Where's your evidence for empire?

From a friend:

"The defense here is "mind boggling incompetence is proof that there was no intent". However, Dan Drezner is too smart not to have read, or at least been aware of, the stream of triumphalist predictions from Chalabi - pere et fille - and the Project for the New American Century, and from Donald Rumsfeld - that we would be welcomed with flowers. Heck, we even staged a statue pulling exercise.

The evidence for empire? How about our initial attempt to secure the oil revenues for the US? Or our repeated attempts to pacify the country in order to force our chosen man into power? Perhaps Dan Drezner doesn't know about Fallujah and Najaf - busy watching The Wonderful World of Pigeons perhaps - but everyone else with half a brain knows what happened. We tried to put down the boot, and got it burned."

No kidding. Rather than posting a shorter version of your post, he just picked the three things he thought he could smack down quickly and completely ignored the rest.

Oh well, at least the comments were extremely interesting. Thanks GW, JC, SomeCallMeTim, cerebrocrat, AppalledModerate and all the others on the side of reason who took the time to write some amazing stuff.

And thanks Matt. Even though Drezner is refusing to even acknowledge your argument, it's good to see the issues out on the table and frankly discussed by such great writers.

As a moderate "lefty" (I hate shrub and almost [there's those damn qualifiers...been getting me into trouble in conversation][as are the asides] everything he and his ilk stand for, but I'm generally rather conservative) and a current alcohol-buzz cultivator, I say: you go, boy! I like reading reasonable republicans (read: Dan) wayyyy more than radical leftists like this guy who's trashing on you whom I've never heard of who's causing all this to-do lately (too many clauses?). Find the common ground; convince other people of your point of view. Those that misrepresent or simply ignore your arguments are not worthy of your time.

Catalonia: So let me get this straight: Saddam used WMD in the past, so therefore we shouldn’t be concerned he will use them in the future.

There we go again - if I use ridicule or hyperbole, then that's "a moronic statement that only a partisan would make", but if you misrepresent what I said in order to ridicule it, then that's quite ok.

Saddam's past use of chemical weapons should be especially embarrassing for us, because it happened at a time when we supported him so that Iran wouldn't win the war against him (a war that he had started). And we weren't all that vocal in condemning his use of chemical weapons at the time. Whereas today we are supposed to gasp in horror at the discovery of some old sarin canisters and consider that justification enough to have invaded a country and killed thousands of innocents in the process.

No, not like that. If you want to look at the past, you have to put it into context.

We also seem to be quite ready to believe (perhaps a bit prematurely as today's reports of a plot to kill the Saudi crown prince suggest) that Qaddafi's past is behind him. Some people who know the region well and travel there often have told me that they think Qaddafi is a much worse madman than Saddam. I don't know if that's true, but I found it quite telling when Rice forgot in her enumeration of big terrorist attacks to include Lockerbie - an honest mistake, sure, but still quite telling.

More accurately, dealing with them both is a riskier but potentially far more effective long-term policy.

Well, this at least is something that could be considered an interesting and potentially correct hypothesis. In fact, it was one of the reasons I initially supported the war in Iraq myself. Something that will, no doubt, surprise you, since you had written me off as a partisan, die-hard liberal - a charge that people who know me personally from 15 or 20 years ago would find totally ridiculous, since I have always taken moderate and often conservative positions and supported conservative parties. That was in Europe, though.

I haven't actually changed my views much, I've just found the political spectrum in the US to be shifted way to the right. John Kerry would easily pass for a conservative in many parts of Europe. George Bush would be considered (no, make that: is considered) an unelectable right-wing nut. (So now you can express your shock at my choice of words again, but that's the way it is as far as his European perception goes. And the right-wingers here will simply take pride in that one of theirs is too far right for the stupid Europeans. So everybody is happy.)

It was the Democratic party’s reaction to 9/11 that has driven me to Independent status

Nothing wrong with Independent status (I'm one, too), but you've got to explain to me what the Democratic party's reaction to 9/11 was (other than to fall in line behind Bush, I mean, and let him get away with anything both related and unrelated to the terror attacks, I mean).

I didn’t imply it was offensive, I merely pointed out that you are complaining of that in which you engage.

I guess that makes two of us.

And you presume that those who are pro-war are ipso facto conservative.

Not really, since I know that the vast majority of Democrats was for the war - in Afghanistan. And a large number was for the Iraq war, too. Hey, I was for the Iraq war, too, initially, but then again, I could be considered a conservative. So there you go: you are the liberal, I'm the conservative. We were both for the war at first. You still are, I'm not anymore. I was for Gore in 2000, you were for Nader. We both didn't think there was a huge difference between Gore and Bush (or at least between the parties).

But then things started to happen that changed our minds. Bush lied about lots of stuff. Stuff related to war, stuff related to tax cuts. Bush wrecked the budget for the foreseeable future. Bush wrecked our international reputation for the foreseeable future. And then there's Abu Ghraib and that torture memo. So we changed our minds. I'm for Kerry now and wouldn't for a moment consider voting for Bush (which I thought worthy of at least some consideration in 2000), and you are for Bush.

In point of fact I am pro-choice, pro-environment, against the death penalty, for the legalization of marijuana, etc., etc., etc.

Good, so we agree on all that, too! :-) (Although I'm certainly not an environmentalist.)

I simply find shrill partisanship counterproductive, dangerous, and indicative of a deeper pathology

Yeah, me too. Which is why I found the reactions to my proposal to replace Bush with McCain on the Republican ticket quite amazing: a mixture of ridicule and outrage. (I think there were two blog entries where I had that discussion; one of them was this: http://danieldrezner.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1317)

There you go - shrill partisanship indicative of a deeper pathology. It's a perfect characterization of some of the right-wingers writing here. And no, I don't mean you this time. In fact, you seem to have misunderstood at least part of what I wrote - I didn't mean to give the bigotry compliment right back to you. I was just trying to point out to you that you were complaining about my choice of words while at the same time engaging in similar or even worse name-calling. But I guess it all depends on one's point of view.

Wow! I have learned a lot reading the exchange between gw and catalonia. I have to admire them both as this is what the free exchange of ideas in this grand experiment called the U.S.A. is all about.

All I'll say for now is that I'm pro-war when it comes to Afghanistan and Iraq. I've not seen anything in the news or on the web or even here that persuades me we're on the wrong track. In fact, I believe even more strongly that we are doing the right thing in Iraq. There's so much noise being made about President Bush supposedly lying about WMD's or again, the supposed "fact" that none have been found that it is hard to hear the much softer sounds of the gradual accumulation of facts that show there were indeed WMD's. You have to be willing to suspend your tightly held positions long enough to really put together ALL the available tidbits of information to weave a clearer picture.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects; in order that this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate...

The simple fact is the "greater number and weight of instances" are found on the side of no WMDs. You're providing a prinstine example of why the term "confirmation bias" was coined.posted by: Hal on 06.09.04 at 05:08 PM [permalink]

Hal,

This experience has solidified my understanding of this crowd. It's just tenure-track FREEP.

The notable quote, from an email by someone who was listening to Sy Hersh speak:

He said that after he broke Abu Ghraib people are coming out of the woodwork to tell him this stuff. He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, "You haven't begun to see evil..." then trailed off. He said, "horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run."

Horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run.
And Justice department memos contemplating how to get away with torture lite.
Recommendations from Albert Gonzales, for torture lite.
Abu Ghraib tortures.
Guantanamo, a US soldier permanently scarred, with possible brain damage, while pretending to be a prisoner.
Ashcroft refusing to release memos.

You may "deride" Hersh - and it is true that his "prediction meter" for the future, based on the agenda of his sources has been known to be faulty. But in his descriptions of what has happened in the past, he is nearly 100 percent.

Again, I can only ask: What will it take? Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe this is the work of a "few bad apples?" Really? With all the evidence of a lenient, wink wink/nudge nudge attitude that these memos reveal? Tales of torture from Abu Ghraib to Guantamo to Afghanistan?

Here's the hypothetical:

If this "things done to children" claim is true (and on tape for God's sake), WHAT WILL IT TAKE, for a public intellectual - such as Daniel Drezner, who I enjoy reading, very much, to get off this bus? And not only condemn the ACTS, but the permissive environment that SPAWNED these acts?

NO ONE higher up is taking responsibility for this. No one is being let go. No one is taking the fall. And Bush isn't demanding anything.

Come on people. At some point, truth matters more than party, than comfort, and surely more than another "outsourcing" post.

Amen...and this too--how about this email home from Major Dave Bellon stationed in Fallujah:

"To the people that cry that we should leave Iraq because we came here for the wrong reasons I would say "I don't care." Honestly, if I found out tomorrow that everyone in government knowingly lied and brought us here because Iraq grows the best sunflower seeds in the world it would not matter to me. We liberated a people from a regime that will go down in history as one of the most brutal ever. That would be enough.

However, we are now in a life and death struggle with an enemy who wants nothing more for us to leave so that they can bring their own brand of terror to the same people. Our biggest failings have been that, as a coalition, we have not been able to overcome our own-ham handed actions and horrible mistakes/crimes and simply convince the Iraqi people that we do in fact want to leave them a free and prosperous country where there is hope. The most successful way to do that is to continue to go out and show them every day and not to cut and run. And you know what? It is working. People are coming to us and talking to us even in the face of Abu Garayb and in the real threat of their own death.

Inside this country right now, there are extremists who have set up courts where in one room, they try Iraqis and in the next they kill them minutes later. Not fantasy - reality. Again, the death sentence? Accepting payment for damage we have done in fighting or in an accident. Taking a job working on a coalition base. Having a brother who has done his job in the police or ICDC.

Are people so naive as to think that if we left, things would get better? The country would implode and thousands of people would be killed. When the dust settled, a more dangerous Iraq would emerge and we would be even more hated throughout the world. It is that simple. We came here to help these people and at the same time to make the world a safer place for free people everywhere. If we leave too early, the people will suffer horribly and the world will have taken one giant step backward. Maybe we are slow on the uptake but it is pretty clear here what the right thing to do is and it is not to abandon the people to the terrorists.

I understand that some people are simply frightened by the violence - for good reason. To them I would say, hang in there. I see people every hour of every day that make me sure we are strong enough to be successful. To people that say our agenda is anything other than what I have written, I say that it does not matter because the young men and women doing the heavy lifting are doing it for the right reason and at the end of the day, the Iraqi people will benefit. They may never like us while we are here as there are thousands of years of culture that separate us. The fact that we are not popular does not change our moral obligation."

I am not a troll. I figure I should make it my business to see how the other half lives. Besides, as you know, I am a staunch supporter and big fan of Matt Stoller. So I wanted to find out what all the fuss was about.

I am so sick of people falling back on the position that the Iraq War was simply "the right thing to do."

Is that really all that matters--some kind of vague, moral gut reaction?

If these people were in Congress (some of them are), and the President approached them with the idea of going to war simply because it was "the right thing to do," would they vote for it?

"The right thing to do" is exactly what is being debated--albeit in hindsight--so using the phrase now is either an attempt to flush the debate down the toilet or a confession that reasons and evidence didn't matter in the first place--and don't matter now.

UNLESS, of course, your reasons are one or all of these:

1) The Iraq War was justified because Saddam used biological weapons against his own people years ago.

2) The Iraq War was justified because the sum total of "bad" things about Iraq--past and present--warranted it.

3) The Iraq War was justified because Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and was both capable of and prepared to use them against the United States and/or its allies.

4) The Iraq War was justified because the United States has a right and/or an obligation to pre-emptively strike targets it considers to be a threat (based on one or all of the reasons above) to its national security.

5) The Iraq War was justified because the United States was really pissed off after September 11, 2001, and blowing up caves in Afghanistan wasn't as cathartic as we hoped it would be.

JC says:Again, I can only ask: What will it take? Does anyone SERIOUSLY believe this is the work of a "few bad apples?" Really? With all the evidence of a lenient, wink wink/nudge nudge attitude that these memos reveal? Tales of torture from Abu Ghraib to Guantamo to Afghanistan?

Here's the hypothetical:

If this "things done to children" claim is true (and on tape for God's sake), WHAT WILL IT TAKE, for a public intellectual - such as Daniel Drezner, who I enjoy reading, very much, to get off this bus? And not only condemn the ACTS, but the permissive environment that SPAWNED these acts?

I think the proper question to ask at this point would be what, if anything, could possibly cause you to not believe the worst of America, short of the return of Democrats to power? You see, despite your call to 'truth above party', the truth, as I see it, is not your goal, but rather, political power. Those calling for truth above party are invariably those seeking to replace the party in power.

I know this of you, because I see you seem to find a small number of bad apples, and the abuse of a relative few, (and yes, I'm convinced that's what we're dealing with, here,) of greater impact and import, than the numbers of dead in mass graves of hundreds of thousands, at the hands of the tyrant we deposed.

I find that this kind of imbalance, the kind of selective blindness you're exhibiting, here, can only make any degree of sense, if we assume that there are other goals besides what you've given us; The only logical conclusion is that politial power is your central goal.

And, at what cost?

That, I suppose, depends on how valuable the intel we're getting from such prisoners. Or perhaps more directly, if you think we're worth keeping alive as a nation, and as a culture, so as to make such intel gathering a need. This, too, it seems to me, shows us a bit of your thinking... one perhaps you'd rather we not see; defeat and destruction of America isn't something you seem particularly worried about.

It is fortunate that most Americans don't share that rather nihilistic and reckless point of view.

For what it's worth, I'm not interested in political power. I'm more of an "appalled moderate". As an example, while I live in San Francisco, I am considered more "conversative" here than the average person. I voted against Willie Brown, on his second term, because he didn't seem too interested in the hands-on practicality of running a city. In the most recent election for mayor, I voted for Gavin Newsom, who was definitely more conservative than Matt Gonzalez. I also thought that Gray Davis had lost all legitimacy (although perhaps unfairly, given the outright criminality of Enron), and gave Arnold Schwarzneggar a chance.

So, you have me wrong here. I'm actually interested in this question - what would it take to get off the bus, for you?

Also, questioning my motives, while valid, is still a dodge to answering, the hypothetical. Do you support an administration whose loosening of torture rules, allowed the torturing of children?

Please answer this - understanding at this point, that it is a hypothetical.

The bottom line, leaving Saddam in power kept the status quo and the status quo was not acceptable to the long term security of the US or the world.

We have upset the applecart and are muddling thru on the re arranging of the middle east. Is it perfect, hell no, but I prefer killing our enemies where they live as opposed to trying to kill them here.

The rest of the debate is crap. Saddam had huge ties with terrorists, he had wmd capability, was a menance to his neighbors and deadly to his own people. He was more of a threat than Bosnia and Kosovo but we still have troops sitting there how long after our bloodless little war there.

More troops from our allies and friends is a nicee Kerry Bumper Sticker but the fact is they don't have any troops - we don't have enough either but that's an inherited situation as we reduced our force structure by 8 divisions and 200 odd ships (Re inventing government)

We are doing the best with what we have, we are winning, and we are placing Iraq on the Path of consensual government after 16 mos or so, an incredible achievement. The rest is silly crap, 20/20 hindsight

For what it's worth, I'm not interested in political power. I'm more of an "appalled moderate". As an example, while I live in San Francisco, I am considered more "conversative" here than the average person.

But this is relative. A moderate in SanFran would be veiwed, I fear, as a marxist in the heartland, and perhaps correctly. Still your comment is useful in gathering what I call surrounding perspective.

So, you have me wrong here. I'm actually interested in this question - what would it take to get off the bus, for you?

Quite a bit more, particularly in a war for our very survival.

First, what you ask is beyond the hypothetical, given the utter lack of proof for your accusations.

Second; apparently you have failed to understand what we are up against; When we see children blowing themselves up in an effort to hurt us, and kill us, do you suppose that what you call tourture is going to be anything worse?

A Marxist? Shoot, you got me!! And I thought I had hidden all of my sickle and hammer signs! :)

Actually, it is refreshing to see who I am debating here. You have to admit, your comments are absurd on their face - there's a lot of political ground from me to Marxism - and quite a lot of policy differences!!

What complete crap. You're worried about our survival? What world do you live in? We are stronger, by several orders of magnitude, than the combined strength of every serious enemy that wishes us serious harm combined.

This is the stuff that drives me nuts. What could you possibly be thinking? We are huge, strong country. We are all but undefeatable, except by our own(see GWB, and his escapades outside the Constituion) . On 9/11, our population grew. That means that if there were a 9/11 sized event every day for the next year, our population would still be bigger than it is today. No enemy of ours has the ability to project essentially any force into our country. How on earth could you be worried about our country's survival? Are you presently posting from your command center burrow, deep below your house?

Sweet Jeebus. And you people are the ones telling us how relatively cheap this war is, in men and money. Fine - then accept that fact, and realize that the other side can't be much of a problem if the enemy we worry about most can be handled so cheaply.

It's actually kind of scary - we're making foreign policy decisions based on this kind of moronic assesment of our security in the world. No wonder everything's gone off the rails. It's like living inside some really bad Bruce Willis movie.

Bithead references allegations of "abusal of children" as absurd. an "utterly hypothetical".

Okay then.

From the Chicago Tribune:

"A military intelligence analyst who recently completed duty at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (news - web sites) said Wednesday that the 16-year-old son of a detainee there was abused by U.S. soldiers to break his father's resistance to interrogators."

Read the whole thing, below. And again, I ask, and this is still on-topic with the point of this thread, although very few people would be reading this now, with 100 comments - what is the point that people will get off the bus?

Jeb: Check out the link on Drudge about how the U.N has determined that Saddam shipped out his WMD prior to the invasion.

Unbelievable. He's recycled the news item we discussed yesterday and put a different spin on it. The lies are blatant and not even hidden to anybody whose memory of the time line of the Iraq war is not too fuzzy:

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003 [emphasis added], and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

May 2003 was after "the end of major combat operations", remember? Not "before the war". This happened after we had supposedly taken control of the country. This happened under our watch. We facilitated weapons proliferation! We screwed up big time! This made us and the rest of the World LESS SAFE. This happened BECAUSE OF THE WAR.

JC: If you go from left to right, here's a (very) approximate estimate

You forgot the Libertarians. Of course, they don't really fit in the left/right pattern.

I think many of the posters here actually have in common that they have many Libertarian traits.

I've had the same experience you had - far left-wingers call me a right-winger, far right-wingers call me a left-winger. I'm a staunch anti-communist and yet have been called a communist by right-wingers. I'm a free trader and very much for balanced budgets. Relatively speaking, I'm even a foreign-policy hawk. But there are limits to what I will support, and we have gone far beyond those limits in Iraq.

The fact remains that Saddam had both the capability to quickly make chem and bio weapons, plus he had prohibited missle technology... BEFORE we invaded. All of you who make such a big deal about not finding a neatly labeled stockpile of weapons are totally missing the point as well as the available facts about what we have uncovered since we invaded.

Before I get into that, I want to point out that people also conveniently forget that we had all the justification we needed to invade under U.N. resolutions that Saddam had willfully flouted for many, many years. Hey, all he had to do was comply with them and we would not hsave invaded. President Bush gave him more than one opportunity to do so. You know why he didn't? Well, it was due to the fact he had plenty to hide.

Now, back to just some of the evidence:

1) Live bio weapons cultures
2) Prohibited missle technology
3) Provided shelter and medical care to Al Qaida terrorists
4) Stockpiled precursors for chem weapons: now this one's interesting. Remember in the early phases of the war when we would find the hidden camoflaged drums of chemicals at suspected weapons sites? They were always located next to agricultural chemical manufacturing sites. After we'd test these highly suspicious drums, the headlines would scream "it was only agricultural chemicals." Well, guess what. These were the raw stock for Saddam's chem weapons. They were set up to be quickly converted to weapons use whenever they were to be needed. Ask yourself this question: Who guards hidden and camoflaged stocks of ... AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS???"

1. WMD claims - let's see. I'm doing this WITHOUT fact sourcing at the moment, so forgive me if I mis-attribute.
a. Niger-Uranium claim in the State of the Union. Was false - and was removed in speech PREVIOUS to the SOTU - so shouldn't have been there.

Uh, actually the SOTU said "uranium from Africa", not "Niger", and Joe Wilson's own book (this didn't get much play for some reason) confirmed that in fact the Iraqis had been looking for something from Niger and that he now believed it was uranium. The actual sourcing was "the Brits think Iraq has been looking for uranium in Africa" and the Brits continue to stand behind that.

c. Rice "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". True of course, but HIGHLY inflammatory, suggestive, and misleading. A lie by another name.

So you'd prefer the smoking gun were a mushroom cloud?

d. A whole host of statements about WMD by George Bush. Uggabugga has the list here but you will have to scroll down.

Find ONE, ONE, that wasn't confirmed by the Clintons, the UN and "leaked" or confirmed by Democratic senators.

I know it's become a very difficult concept, but being wrong isn't the same as lying.

(Also, note the amount of iraqi WMD material, including suspiciously radioactive material and rocket motors forbidden by the cease-fire, that have been showing up in scrap yards.)

2. Same tax cut different situations. I basically think this one is a slam-dunk, because it is obvious, but here goes:
a. Bush originally promoted his top-heavy tax cut (benefits weighted towards the rich)

not actually true -- the outcome of the tax cut, even including FICA, has been to make the tax system more progressive.

and the rationale was because people "deserved" it, or some such.
b. Then the rationale was, because we were in a depression, the year the top heavy tax cut got passed.
c. Then the next year, for the new cut, the rationale was - well, shoot. I forget. Something inane, I'm sure. Maybe someone can help me out here...

No one is going to be able to help you out, poopsie, because you're making a basic mistake: you're assuming that there can't be multiple reasons for multiple tax cuts.

You're making a couple of other mistakes, of course: you're assuming that anyone will read you saying "asinine reasons" as an argument, and you're not very clear on what actually happened (depression? Two quarters of slight shrinkage and unemployment around 6 percent. Son, you clearly haven't the foggiest notion of what a depression is, and apparently don't even remember the 881-82 receission.)

d. This is what Krugman got RIGHT, at least a year before anyone else, that the numbers that Bush's "economics" team was proposing, didn't add up. You COULDN'T have the first tax cut, and keep the surplus, which is what Bush was running on. And, it was totally false.

Dolt. The whole point of having the tax cut was to reduce the surplus. The rationale was to return money to the people. The only people who called that "spending the surplus" were the same people who believe that reducing the rate of growth in some funding is a "cut".

Which is to say, people who have their hands, in one way or another, in the public's pockets.

4. Label the opposition stupid, wrong, treasonous

You might want to look up the old saying about pots and kettles.

a. The 75% "negative" campaign ads against Kerry. 75%??

Check your sources. "Negative" has come to mean "disagrees, questions his votes, questions his judgement" -- if and only if the person asking is a Republican and the person questioned is not.

I'm too bored to continue, frankly, but as the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Thorley Winston: So the best you can do on JC's eight points is employ the conservative crybaby defense and (falsely) accuse the previous Democratic admin and this year's Democratic presidential candidates of being no better as far as 1 through 6 are concerned

Meaning: how dare I point out that most of the charges are more applicable to the accusers than the accused based on their own actions and words. It’s not my fault that JC picked the wrong smears to throw out.

, then crack jokes about 7 (the torture issue)

Actually I cracked a joke about number 3, try to pay attention.

and repeat a Bush campaign lie against Kerry in 8?

A “lie” which unfortunately for Kerry happens to be true. But he can keep telling people that he actually “voted for the $87 Billion before I voted against it” but the bottom line is he voted “no” when it counted and he and his apologists have zero credibility to criticize the Bush administration for not devoting enough resources for the troops.

Right on Mr. Winston. I just laugh reading all the posts attacking President Bush. It shows the absolute desperation of the left. Mr. Kerry is not a very good candidate in the first place and he hasn't helped himself with all the waffling and flip-flopping.

Bush wasn't a very good candidate in the first place and he hasn't helped himself very much by screwing up pretty much everything he set his hand to over the past four years and significantly damaging his country. How about that?

Like Stoller, I am getting tired of Drezner's flip dismissiveness toward people he disagrees with, even in the face of significant evidence that his own views were seriously mistaken. Credentials in the academic study of international relations don't exactly entitle you to that...it is hardly what anyone would call a hard science, or indeed a science at all.

"Oh, please -- an empire that sent in fewer troops than was necessary? An administration that now seems hell-bent on getting out of the country? Where's your evidence for empire?"

Bush & company are an "imperialist" faction within a country that is basically not that sympathetic to imperialist projects. So naturally they had to try their power grab on the cheap. The evidence for their imperialist goals would be their refusal to grant elections to the Iraqis, their institution of a transitional constitution carefully rigged to preserve U.S. military bases and control, and their maintenance of control of large chunks of the Iraqi economy in the hands of U.S. contractors and corporations for what is almost a year and a half now. All of this stuff has contributed to the mess we are in over there.